A single 10?20 mg PlaceboNoYesHip/knee/spine/otherPuopolo et al. 2007 [68]Etoricoxib 30 mg Ibuprofen 2400 mg Placebo6.6 six.7 six.YesYesHip/kneePage five ofMyers et al. BMC Musculoskeletal Problems 2014, 15:76 http://biomedcentral/1471-2474/15/Table 1 Characteristics of all integrated studies (Alphabetically ordered) (Continued)Rauck et al. 2013 [69] Schnitzer et al. 2011 [70]b Schnitzer et al. 2011 [71]b Schnitzer et al. 2010 [72]b Sheldon et al. 2005 [73]b Sowers et al. 2005 [74]c Tannenbaum et al. 2004 [75]b Hydromorphone 16 mg 330 Placebo Celecoxib 200 mg Placebo Naproxen 1000 mg Placebo Naproxen 1000 mg Placebo Celecoxib 200 mg Placebo Celecoxib 200 mg Naproxen 1000 mg Celecoxib 200 mg Placebo Vojtassak et al. 2011 [76] Hydromorphone Placebo Wiesenhutter et al. 2005 [77] Etoricoxib 30 mg Ibuprofen 2400 mg Placeboa59.five 60 61.7 61.four 60 60.15 61.1 61 60.2 60.eight 61.8 63.six 64.1 64.six 65 66 63.1 61.3 59.5 70.08 (12.98) 69.85 (13.12) 54.79 (15.45) 55.31 (14.36) 46.20 (22.16) 51.40 (20.36) 50.73 (16.04) 51.25 (14.58) 60.00 (ten.11) 57.92 (10.36) 68.68 (16.64) 68.13 (17.02) 69.71 (16.52)b-17.00 (19.98) -13.00 (20.01) 54.90 (14.49) 54.58 (15.11) -16.58 (15.24)a -10.62 (13.83) -16.04 (18.62) -20.42 (20.17) -9.90 (17.01) -16.30 (20.99) -14.70 (21.50) -13.96 (16.46) -9.79 (16.77) -17.75 (14.62) -17.69 (15.79) -24.52 (22.97) -23.65 (23.13) -14.20 (20.24)a64.2 63 61.three 60.six 70.5 72.65 67.4 71.9 63.1 61.3 62 60 69.2 67.1 77 68 70.1 70 72.cNoYesHip/knee331 419 416 254 257 227 221 393 382 136 128 481 243 138 149 214 2103.7 three.NoNoHip-26.29 (18.71)aaYesNoKnee-33.33 (20.23)aaYesNoKnee-16.25 (19.08)6.7NoNoKneeNoNoHip/knee5.three 4.NoNoKneeNoYesHip/knee7.9 8.two six.YesNoHip/KneeNote: worth imputed by estimating a stiffness subscore from other scores reported for that therapy; study longer than 12 weeks duration; included in Bayesian evaluation only, no placebo arm, dwashout is not thought of as full in research with concomitant analgesic use; edenotes research with out a washout period; fdenotes research with enriched enrollment design and style; gindicates endpoint WOMAC score, transform from baseline not out there in these studies; hindicates distinction from placebo in WOMAC score adjust from baseline.Page 6 ofMyers et al.Price of Fmoc-O-Methyl-L-Homoseri BMC Musculoskeletal Issues 2014, 15:76 http://biomedcentral/1471-2474/15/Page 7 ofvariance. Scores are frequently reported as: a) a total of your Likert scores, b) a total of the VAS scores, or c) normalized units with total and subscale scores reported on 0?00 scales [34].GPhos Pd G6 TES Data Sheet To overcome this situation, WOMAC total scores have been converted to a 0-100 normalized scale employing a direct ratio.PMID:23916866 If alter from baseline was not reported, it was calculated as the difference amongst baseline and endpoint or, if not doable, because the distinction among baseline and also a weighted typical of several observations throughout remedy [35]. When subscale scores have been reported devoid of the total score, the total score and variance had been calculated in the subscales. Missing stiffness subscale scores were imputed by substituting the mean of these reported for that treatment. Research reporting neither the total score nor the pain and function subscale scores were omitted from the analysis.Statistical analysisFrequentist and Bayesian strategies have been employed to assess the impact of which includes the direct and indirect information inside the evaluation. The frequentist meta-analysis utilizing Bucher indirect comparisons was chosen since it reports traditional statistical measures, whereas the Bayesian network meta-analysis allows f.